Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36683
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Zagubovič, Agata
Title: Ar 2014 m. gegužės 15 d. Europos parlamento ir tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 655/2014, kuriuo nustatoma europinio sąskaitos blokavimo įsakymo procedūra, palengvina tarpvalstybinį skolų išieškojimą civilinėse ir komercinėse bylose?
Other Title: Or on the 15 may 2014 European parliament and council regulation (EU) No. 655/2014, which establishes the procedure for blocking a european account, facilitates the cross – border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters?
Extent: 35 p.
Date: 7-Jun-2018
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Sąskaitos blokavimo įsakymas;Reglamentas;Europos vykdomasis raštas;Europos mokėjimo įsakymas;Europos ieškiniai dėl nedidelių sumų procedūra;Account Blocking Order;European Enforcement Order;European Payment Order;European Small Claims Procedure.;Regulation
Abstract: Šių dienų ekonomikos rinkoje vyksta intensyvi plėtra. Vis daugiau įmonių bendradarbiauja tarpvalstybiniu mastu, bet kad ir kaip norėtųsi ne viskas vyksta sklandžiai, kad pavyktų išspręsti iškilusius nesutarimus tenka kreiptis ir į teismus. Norint palengvinti skolų išieškojimą civilinėse ir komercinėse bylose priimtas Reglamentas Nr. 655//2014, tačiau ar šis palengvina kreditoriui efektyviai atgauti skolas? Norint įsigilinti į temos aktualumą taip pat yra aptariamas ankščiau galiojęs Reglamentas Nr. 1215/2012 dėl jurisdikcijos bei teismų sprendimų pripažinimo civilinėse ir komercinėse bylose. Aptariamas tarptautinis teismingumas Europos Sąjungos teisėje, procedūros palengvinančios tarpvalstybinį skolų išieškojimą (Europos vykdomasis raštas, Europos mokėjimo įsakymas, Europos ieškiniai dėl nedidelių sumų procedūra). Darbe pristatomas 2014 m. gegužės 15 d. priimtas Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 655/ 2014, kuris nustato europinio sąskaitos blokavimo įsakymo procedūrą, kurios tikslas palengvinti tarpvalstybinį skolų išieškojimą civilinėse ir komercinėse bylose. Šią procedūrą valstybės pradėjo taikyti tik nuo 2017 m. sausio 18 d., Reglamentas Nr. 655/2014 užtikrina skolininko ir kreditoriaus interesų pusiausvyrą. Pagrindinis darbo tikslas – aptarti Reglamento Nr. 655/2014 svarbiausius tikslus, kaip reikia taikyti, šio Reglamento dalyką ir jurisdikciją. Kada ir kaip galima pasinaudoti Reglamente nustatyta procedūra. Atskleisti probleminius aspektus. Šis Reglamentas Nr. 655/2014 tobulintas tam, kad skolininkas turėtų galimybę naudotis reikalingomis lėšomis būtiniems asmenims ar verslo poreikiams tenkinti. Tačiau, pernelyg griežtai ir nepakankamai apibrėžtos blokavimo išdavimo sąlygos apsunkina kreditoriui galimybe pasinaudoti blokavimo įsakymo išdavimo procedūra. Pateikti nuostatų taikymo perspektyvas. Pagrindiniai iki tol egzistavę sunkumai tarpvalstybinių skolų išieškojimo išliko ir po pradėto taikyti naujo Reglamento Nr. 655/2014. Liko neišspręsta brangi ir ilga procedūra, skirtingos laikinųjų apsaugų priemonių valstybėse narėse išdavimo sąlygos. Nevienodas skolų atgavimo sąlygos valstybėse narėse mažina verslininkų ir vartotojų pasitikėjimą Europos vidaus rinka, kelia konkurencijos iškreipimo pavojų.
In this days society, the economic market is undergoing intensive development. More and more companies are cooperating on a cross-border basis, but if you do not want everything to go smoothly, in order to resolve the disagreements you have to go to the courts. In order to facilitate the recovery of debts in civil and commercial matters, Regulation No. 655/2014, does it make it easier for the creditor effectively recover his debts? In order to deepen the relevance of the topic, there is also a discussion of the previously existing Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It discusses international jurisdiction in European Union law, procedures for facilitating cross-border debt recovery (European Enforcement Order, European Payment Order, European Small Claims Procedure). The work is presented in 2014. May 15th Regulation (EU) No. of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 655/2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation") establishing a procedure for the blocking of European accounts in order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. This procedure was only applied by the states from 18 January 2017. Ensuring a balance between the interests of the debtor and the creditor. The main objective of the work is to discuss the subject matter, objectives, scope and jurisdiction of the Regulation. When and how to use the procedure set out in the Regulation No. 655/2014. The disclosure of the problematic aspects - the excessively strict and insufficiently defined conditions for blocking make it difficult for the creditor to benefit from the blocking order procedure. Provide prospects for the application. This Regulation No. 655/2014 has been refined to enable the borrower to access the necessary funds or to meet the needs of the business. The major difficulties that existed before the recovery of cross-border debts persisted after the introduction of the new Regulation No 655/2014. An expensive and lengthy procedure, different conditions for the grant of interim relief in the Member States, remains to be resolved. Uneven debt recovery in the Member States reduces the confidence of business and consumers in the European internal market, posing a risk of distortion of competition. In the European Union, the movement of judgments was facilitated by the abandonment of exequatur. Interim measures were imposed without additional precedents. 2017 January 18 Regulation No. 655/2014 changed the situation with the blocking procedure. Regulation No. 655/2014 has created a completely new procedure, which allows one document 6 to block an account within the territory of the European Union, as well as the possibility to adapt beyond the European Union. (for example: a debtor who is resident in the United States and has an account in one of the Member States of the European Union, the creditor can ask the court to block that account). Regulation No. 655/2014, like all laws, has pluses and minuses. The Regulation has been adopted to facilitate the recovery of debts in the Member States of the European Union. Conclusions and recommendations can be found under the heading. First, the blocking order should apply to bank accounts of a legal entity only when the creditor provides proof that it is not sufficient to secure the attachment. Such actions restrict the activities of a legal person, and should therefore be applied only in exceptional cases. Secondly, by prohibiting a legal entity from disposing of the funds available in it is account, the interests of the legal person and employees as well as other creditors are violated. In Lithuanian practice, is a very correct position, has been expressed that the rights of employees to the wages of a non-affiliated party who are not related to a creditor's claim should be defended. Under the bill order, the legislator should establish non-blocking funds in order for the debtor to be able to pay tax obligations to the state, since such obligation is provided by law. The creditor faces another problem: the length of the procedure, in order to block the account, will first have to inform the debtor, as he will have to submit meaningful information to the court. The third court should, in each situation, assess the nature of the company's activities and other circumstances related to the company's activities in order to determine the amount to be blocked. Also, do not block the funds that are needed to support the company's solvency and operations. Fourth, the conditions for issuing the order should also include the requirement to provide a guarantee. The blocking order should be applied urgently in order to avoid the risk that the borrower will "hide" his funds. The size and form of the guarantee as defined by the Regulation No 655/2014 makes it possible to believe that different national systems are subject to an inequitable guarantee that prevents the creditor from effectively protecting his rights. Fifthly, the Regulation No 655/2014 did not establish rules for the enforcement of the right of appeal and did not regulate the right of appeal. Such rules must be mandatory in the Regulation. Since the time limits and procedures for filing and hearing complaints vary between Member States, without this rule being followed, this does not preclude the borrower from seeking forum shopping in a favorable manner. There are also differences between Member States in the application of interim relief measures. 7 Sixth, the Regulation No. 655/2014 did not establish any ex parte 1 procedures, exceptions to the provisions of the blocking order. However, on the other hand, the issuance of an ex parte blocking order is not always appropriate, for example: the borrower is informed of the ongoing process and has reason to believe that the creditor's claim will be subject to interim measures.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36683
Appears in Collections:2018 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
agata_zagubovic_md.pdf618.57 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

66
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

2
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.